Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

For months, officials in Republican-controlled Iowa had sought federal permission to revitalize their ailing health-insurance marketplace. Then President Trump read about the request in a newspaper story and called the federal director weighing the application.

Trump's message in late August was clear, according to individuals who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations: Tell Iowa no.

Supporters of the Affordable Care Act see the president's opposition even to changes sought by conservative states as part of a broader campaign by his administration to undermine the 2010 health-care law. In addition to trying to cut funding for the ACA, the Trump administration also is hampering state efforts to control premiums. In the case of Iowa, that involved a highly unusual intervention by the president himself.

Is that the same as COBRA? If you were to leave your job your employer would be obligated to extend your current coverage for 18 months as long as you pay the premiums. That would at least give you time to find another employer or other coverage. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...-job-loss.html

As I recall from when I used it a couple decades ago, COBRA usually costs a small fortune. When I was laid off from New York State in 2010, they maintained my health insurance for up to 18 months with payments that were the same as what had previously been deducted from my paycheck every month.

COBRA simply continues the same plan at the same price. The only difference is that you pay for all of it instead of your employer paying a portion.

That's when you get a good idea of how much your employer provided health insurance REALLY costs.

So for all the people that complain about having to pay way more taxes for a single payer universal health insurance, they aren't considering the savings of their employer not having to foot a large amount of the health insurance bill anymore.

That's what I thought, but I wasn't sure. Like I said, it's been a long time since I used it, and the last time I lost my job my former employer continued to cover their portion of the insurance.

That's great for an employer to do that. I have to pay all of my insurance for COBRA, which runs out at the end of the year. The individual marketplace will cost me MORE money for a comparable plan if you can even find it.

__________________"You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade

That's great for an employer to do that. I have to pay all of my insurance for COBRA, which runs out at the end of the year. The individual marketplace will cost me MORE money for a comparable plan if you can even find it.

I was in one of those evil, Communist unions that have destroyed America, and the requirement to maintain insurance in the event of layoffs was in our contract. The layoff of 900 state employees happened so the Governor could intimidate the union before the next contract negotiation... I mean... it was done to help balance the state budget.

As I recall from when I used it a couple decades ago, COBRA usually costs a small fortune. When I was laid off from New York State in 2010, they maintained my health insurance for up to 18 months with payments that were the same as what had previously been deducted from my paycheck every month.

Originally Posted by paulhutch

COBRA simply continues the same plan at the same price. The only difference is that you pay for all of it instead of your employer paying a portion.

COBRA and Group Conversion are similar, but aren't the same things. COBRA allows you to continue the exact same plan you had with your employer, paying the full fare that your employer pays, with a time limit of 18 months. Group Conversion allows you to continue into a specific plan, on a guaranteed issue, guaranteed renewable basis. You transition your group plan into another plan that you pay for independently. The benefits won't be exactly the same, but it is generally comprehensive coverage. Group Conversion pre-dates ACA, and was intended to provide an option for continued coverage for people with pre-existing conditions.

Both COBRA and Group Conversion tend to be quite expensive. COBRA is expensive because most employer benefits are expensive (employees usually see only a small portion of the cost). Group Conversion is expensive because it's generally adopted only by people with considerable medical need who wouldn't pass underwriting in the Individual market. Group Conversion only still exists because it hasn't been done away with. I may be missing some nuances (it's not a coverage I work with on a regular basis), but it would seem to be unnecessary given ACA's removal of pre-existing condition limitations.

__________________I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

If there are special circumstances which can be addressed beneficially by such a request is it a bad thing to ask?

Doesn't the process have to start somewhere?

We have been told that the ACA is not perfect. Are there no provisions to make accommodations for unusual conditions?

ACA isn't perfect. It just seems a bit misleading to imply that Trump is busy being a horrible irrational person because he declined to let one state make substantial changes to the rules of ACA for them alone. Many other states have faced large swaths of areas that would have no individual coverage, and have managed to come up with other solutions that don't involve re-inventing a federal law that is supposed to apply to everyone the same.

Seriously, there are plenty, many, a plethora of reasons to imply (or outright say) that Trump is busy being a horrible irrational person. This is just not really one of those reasons

__________________I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that closely held for-profit companies could also deny contraceptive coverage to employees on religious grounds, in a case brought by Hobby Lobby, the arts and crafts retailer.

The new Trump rules go much further than the Hobby Lobby ruling by effectively allowing any business, university or other organization to opt out, without having to notify the government that it is doing so. That puts hundreds of thousands of women at risk of losing benefits. Under the system created by the Obama administration, when an employer chose not to pay for birth control, employees were provided coverage directly by insurance companies at no cost to the beneficiary. That system will now become optional for employers.

It's a sucky decision. Most oral contraceptives are quite inexpensive, I don't think this is necessarily a huge barrer... but when you combine it with the rather systematic destruction of planned parenthood by the religious right over the past several years, it's becoming a bit idiotic. At some point, we women might have to go all Lysistrata on this country. No nookie until you knock off trying to own our reproduction.

__________________I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

It's a sucky decision. Most oral contraceptives are quite inexpensive, I don't think this is necessarily a huge barrer... but when you combine it with the rather systematic destruction of planned parenthood by the religious right over the past several years, it's becoming a bit idiotic. At some point, we women might have to go all Lysistrata on this country. No nookie until you knock off trying to own our reproduction.

Also thinking too much will give you wrinkles. Best to leave that to the men while you make up sandwiches.

Oh tnoes! Wrinkles are the worstest! My man won't find me attractive if I have wrinkles, then I'll be all alone! Oh whatever shall I do! I suppose I'll just have to find a man to do all my thinking for me!

__________________I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

The order is aimed at encouraging the rise of a raft of cheap, loosely regulated health insurance plans that don't have to comply with certain Obamacare consumer protections and benefit rules. They'd attract younger and healthier people — leaving older and sicker ones in the Obamacare markets facing higher and higher costs.

That's when you get a good idea of how much your employer provided health insurance REALLY costs.

So for all the people that complain about having to pay way more taxes for a single payer universal health insurance, they aren't considering the savings of their employer not having to foot a large amount of the health insurance bill anymore.

Especially when you look at the data in my signature.

The UK spends a smaller proportion of its GDP on public healthcare than the US and manages to provide universal coverage.

You are *already* paying more in taxes for your healthcare than me

__________________OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcarehttp://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

President Donald Trump will cut off subsidy payments to insurers selling Obamacare coverage in its most aggressive move yet to undermine the health law, the White House announced Thursday night.

“Based on guidance from the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services has concluded that there is no appropriation for cost-sharing reduction payments to insurance companies under Obamacare,” Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement emailed at 10:47 p.m. Thursday.

So it's now official I take it.

Quote:

The subsidies, worth an estimated $7 billion this year and paid out in monthly installments, may stop almost immediately. POLITICO reported the development earlier Thursday, citing several sources.

The announcement – coming hours after Trump signed an executive order calling for new regulations to encourage cheap, loosely regulated health plans – delivered a double whammy to Obamacare after months of failed GOP efforts to repeal the law. With open enrollment for the 2018 plan year set to launch in two weeks, the moves seem aimed at dismantling the law through executive actions.

“Trump said Obamacare would implode. He did not say he would light the match,” said state Rep. Garnet Coleman, a Houston Democrat.

So it is now officially Trumpcare from here forward as of these executive decisions. Ending the subsidy for insurance companies is huge.

Is he still going to try to claim that this is just Obamacare imploding on its own?

__________________A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

If it is illegal payments then it is Obamacare imploding on its own. You can't expect new management to carry on an illegal scheme.

This assumes that the Trump Administration isn't lying or overreaching when it declares that the scheme is illegal. Remember that President Trump in particular has been shown to lie when he believes that it is in his interest to do so.

You may claim that it's OK. If The President and his administration are lying or overreaching then this will be resolved, in due course, through the courts. The trouble is that irreparable damage may already have been done by this stage.

House republicans filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration, arguring that congress needed to approve payment of subsidies in a separate bill, before they could be paid out.

I guess Trump gave the nod to the Justice department that they should stop defending the case (it's been stayed since last year, presumably since the republicans were banking on a quick repeal of ACA).

__________________So Hillary sharing her email secrets with a server in her own basement was dangerous? But Trump spilling his guts to Russian agents that hold his pee pee tapes is not?http://karireport.blogspot.com/